IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2108.03726.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Improving Inference from Simple Instruments through Compliance Estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Coussens
  • Jann Spiess

Abstract

Instrumental variables (IV) regression is widely used to estimate causal treatment effects in settings where receipt of treatment is not fully random, but there exists an instrument that generates exogenous variation in treatment exposure. While IV can recover consistent treatment effect estimates, they are often noisy. Building upon earlier work in biostatistics (Joffe and Brensinger, 2003) and relating to an evolving literature in econometrics (including Abadie et al., 2019; Huntington-Klein, 2020; Borusyak and Hull, 2020), we study how to improve the efficiency of IV estimates by exploiting the predictable variation in the strength of the instrument. In the case where both the treatment and instrument are binary and the instrument is independent of baseline covariates, we study weighting each observation according to its estimated compliance (that is, its conditional probability of being affected by the instrument), which we motivate from a (constrained) solution of the first-stage prediction problem implicit to IV. The resulting estimator can leverage machine learning to estimate compliance as a function of baseline covariates. We derive the large-sample properties of a specific implementation of a weighted IV estimator in the potential outcomes and local average treatment effect (LATE) frameworks, and provide tools for inference that remain valid even when the weights are estimated nonparametrically. With both theoretical results and a simulation study, we demonstrate that compliance weighting meaningfully reduces the variance of IV estimates when first-stage heterogeneity is present, and that this improvement often outweighs any difference between the compliance-weighted and unweighted IV estimands. These results suggest that in a variety of applied settings, the precision of IV estimates can be substantially improved by incorporating compliance estimation.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Coussens & Jann Spiess, 2021. "Improving Inference from Simple Instruments through Compliance Estimation," Papers 2108.03726, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2108.03726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.03726
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James J. Heckman & Sergio Urzua & Edward Vytlacil, 2006. "Understanding Instrumental Variables in Models with Essential Heterogeneity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(3), pages 389-432, August.
    2. Stefan Wager & Susan Athey, 2018. "Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(523), pages 1228-1242, July.
    3. Amanda E. Kowalski, 2023. "Reconciling Seemingly Contradictory Results from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment and the Massachusetts Health Reform," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(3), pages 646-664, May.
    4. Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Christopher R. Walters, 2021. "The Causal Interpretation of Two-Stage Least Squares with Multiple Instrumental Variables," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(11), pages 3663-3698, November.
    5. Amanda Kowalski, 2016. "Doing more when you're running LATE: Applying marginal treatment effect methods to examine treatment effect heterogeneity in experiments," Artefactual Field Experiments 00560, The Field Experiments Website.
    6. James J. Heckman & Edward Vytlacil, 2005. "Structural Equations, Treatment Effects, and Econometric Policy Evaluation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 669-738, May.
    7. Christian N. Brinch & Magne Mogstad & Matthew Wiswall, 2017. "Beyond LATE with a Discrete Instrument," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(4), pages 985-1039.
    8. Victor Chernozhukov & Mert Demirer & Esther Duflo & Ivan Fernandez-Val, 2017. "Generic machine learning inference on heterogenous treatment effects in randomized experiments," CeMMAP working papers CWP61/17, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    9. Chamberlain, Gary, 1987. "Asymptotic efficiency in estimation with conditional moment restrictions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 305-334, March.
    10. Hansen, Christian & Kozbur, Damian, 2014. "Instrumental variables estimation with many weak instruments using regularized JIVE," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 182(2), pages 290-308.
    11. Amanda E. Kowalski, 2016. "Doing More When You're Running LATE: Applying Marginal Treatment Effect Methods to Examine Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in Experiments for the Young and Privately Insured"," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2045, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    12. Magne Mogstad & Alexander Torgovitsky & Christopher R. Walters, 2020. "Policy Evaluation with Multiple Instrumental Variables," NBER Working Papers 27546, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Liran Einav & Amy Finkelstein & Neale Mahoney, 2023. "Long-Term Care Hospitals: A Case Study in Waste," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(4), pages 745-765, July.
    14. A. Belloni & D. Chen & V. Chernozhukov & C. Hansen, 2012. "Sparse Models and Methods for Optimal Instruments With an Application to Eminent Domain," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(6), pages 2369-2429, November.
    15. Borusyak, Kirill & Hull, Peter, 2020. "Non-Random Exposure to Exogenous Shocks: Theory and Applications," CEPR Discussion Papers 15319, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Magne Mogstad & Andres Santos & Alexander Torgovitsky, 2018. "Using Instrumental Variables for Inference About Policy Relevant Treatment Parameters," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1589-1619, September.
    17. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
    18. Amanda E. Kowalski, 2018. "How to Examine External Validity Within an Experiment," NBER Working Papers 24834, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.
    20. Huntington-Klein Nick, 2020. "Instruments with Heterogeneous Effects: Bias, Monotonicity, and Localness," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 182-208, January.
    21. Huntington-Klein Nick, 2020. "Instruments with Heterogeneous Effects: Bias, Monotonicity, and Localness," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 182-208, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lucy C. Sorensen & Montserrat Avila‐Acosta & John B. Engberg & Shawn D. Bushway, 2023. "The thin blue line in schools: New evidence on school‐based policing across the U.S," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(4), pages 941-970, September.
    2. Luis Antonio Fantozzi Alvarez & Rodrigo Toneto, 2024. "The interpretation of 2SLS with a continuous instrument: a weighted LATE representation," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2024_11, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    3. Tadao Hoshino, 2023. "Causal Interpretation of Linear Social Interaction Models with Endogenous Networks," Papers 2308.04276, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert A. Moffitt & Matthew V. Zahn, 2019. "The Marginal Labor Supply Disincentives of Welfare: Evidence from Administrative Barriers to Participation," NBER Working Papers 26028, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Timothy B. Armstrong & Michal Kolesár, 2021. "Sensitivity analysis using approximate moment condition models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), pages 77-108, January.
    3. Amanda E Kowalski, 2023. "Behaviour within a Clinical Trial and Implications for Mammography Guidelines," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(1), pages 432-462.
    4. Pereda-Fernández, Santiago, 2023. "Identification and estimation of triangular models with a binary treatment," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 585-623.
    5. Vishal Kamat & Samuel Norris & Matthew Pecenco, 2023. "Identification in Multiple Treatment Models under Discrete Variation," Papers 2307.06174, arXiv.org.
    6. Luis Antonio Fantozzi Alvarez & Rodrigo Toneto, 2024. "The interpretation of 2SLS with a continuous instrument: a weighted LATE representation," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2024_11, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    7. Yu-Chang Chen & Haitian Xie, 2022. "Personalized Subsidy Rules," Papers 2202.13545, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.
    8. Nadja van ’t Hoff & Arthur Lewbel & Giovanni Mellace, 2023. "Limited Monotonicity and the Combined Compliers LATE," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1059, Boston College Department of Economics.
    9. David Arnold & Will Dobbie & Peter Hull, 2022. "Measuring Racial Discrimination in Bail Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(9), pages 2992-3038, September.
    10. Black, Dan A. & Joo, Joonhwi & LaLonde, Robert & Smith, Jeffrey A. & Taylor, Evan J., 2022. "Simple Tests for Selection: Learning More from Instrumental Variables," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    11. Domenico Depalo, 2020. "Explaining the causal effect of adherence to medication on cholesterol through the marginal patient," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(S1), pages 110-126, October.
    12. Huber, Martin & Wüthrich, Kaspar, 2017. "Evaluating local average and quantile treatment effects under endogeneity based on instruments: a review," FSES Working Papers 479, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    13. Tarek Azzam & Michael Bates & David Fairris, 2019. "Do Learning Communities Increase First Year College Retention? Testing Sample Selection and External Validity of Randomized Control Trials," Working Papers 202002, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
    14. Sokbae Lee & Bernard Salanié, 2018. "Identifying Effects of Multivalued Treatments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(6), pages 1939-1963, November.
    15. Patrick Kline & Christopher R. Walters, 2019. "On Heckits, LATE, and Numerical Equivalence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(2), pages 677-696, March.
    16. Tafti, Elena Ashtari, 2023. "Technology, Skills, and Performance: The Case of Robots in Surgery," CINCH Working Paper Series (since 2020) 78746, Duisburg-Essen University Library, DuEPublico.
    17. Gong, Jie & Lu, Yi & Xie, Huihua, 2020. "The average and distributional effects of teenage adversity on long-term health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    18. Bartalotti, Otávio & Kédagni, Désiré & Possebom, Vitor, 2023. "Identifying marginal treatment effects in the presence of sample selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 565-584.
    19. Hideo Akabayashi & TIm Ruberg & Chizuru Shikishima & Jun Yamashita, 2023. "Education-Oriented and Care-Oriented Preschools:Implications on Child Development," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2023-009, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    20. Antill, Samuel, 2022. "Do the right firms survive bankruptcy?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 523-546.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2108.03726. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.